A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Mountain Biking
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 5th 06, 10:05 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Bruce Jensen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 522
Default Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?

Ed Pirrero wrote:

Really? Which part is opinion?

I see one in there, besides the invective.

E.P.


I pointed out two of them, which you snipped. The rest are left to the
readers' perceptions.

Bruce Jensen

Ads
  #22  
Old December 6th 06, 04:01 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
jason
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"



Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!


hey mikey take a look, cell phones DONT cause cancer. Is the rest of
your research and facts as accurate?


http://www.wrcbtv.com/news/index.cfm?sid=4926

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/heal...p?newsid=58298
  #23  
Old December 6th 06, 04:30 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Ed Pirrero
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 785
Default Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?


Bruce Jensen wrote:
Ed Pirrero wrote:

Really? Which part is opinion?

I see one in there, besides the invective.

E.P.


I pointed out two of them, which you snipped. The rest are left to the
readers' perceptions.


OK, now I see the other one. "Much" of what he wrote wasn't opinion.
Less than half of his points were opinion. I do agree that the
invective makes for difficult reading.

Really, if you want to have discussion on the merits of a particular
course of action, it's best to leave hyperbole and name-calling out.
Mike doesn't adhere to that in the least, and cherry-picks his "facts"
as suit his conclusions. Real scientists usually refer to such things
as "junk" science.

No matter how fervently one believes in something, they are not
entitled to their own set of facts.

E.P.

  #24  
Old December 6th 06, 05:00 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
JP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 300
Default Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?


"Ed Pirrero" wrote in message
ups.com...

Really, if you want to have discussion on the merits of a particular
course of action, it's best to leave hyperbole and name-calling out.
Mike doesn't adhere to that in the least, and cherry-picks his "facts"
as suit his conclusions. Real scientists usually refer to such things
as "junk" science.

No matter how fervently one believes in something, they are not
entitled to their own set of facts.

E.P.


I'm not trying to have a discusssion with MV, that has been proven
impossible
by many in the group including myself. My use of "invective" is simply a
mirror
of MV's responses and is directed at him for that reason.
What I am trying to do is to rename the threads and possibly by example
show others that the thread can be renamed with Subject lines that MV is not
willing to pursue. Having thousands of posts follow his Subject title is to
repeat the
original lie that his subject espouses (Mountain Bikers kill hikers,
Mountain Bikers
destroy wilderness, Mountain Bikers break the law) which increases the
probability
of a Google hit and plants seeds in the weakminded. Repetition turns lies
into
truth for many as shown in past political elections.

If you wish to engage in reasoned debate with MV you are wasting your time.
(Yawn. Did you say something?)
If you wish to do so anyway I would suggest changing the header.
At least that reduces the appearence of his hijacking of the group.
He has no interest in "wilderness" or "wildlife."
His game is to control a group.
By responding to the apparent though false message he posts
one allows him to play his game with an unsuspecting dupe.
The dupe replies using the same header and typically not snipping the
original post.
MV gets to see his subject and message repeated thousands of times,
meanwhile he denigrates and uses "invective" until the rspondent tires and
moves on.
MV wins his twisted little game that his opponent didn't even realize was
being played.

I've decided to play with MV when I have the time.
I'll control the header content.
I'll snip the garbage in the message.
I'll say "LIAR."
I'll "yawn" when I'm done.





  #25  
Old December 6th 06, 05:14 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Roberto Baggio
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 173
Default Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?

He made reference to my mother explaining to me the definition of "virgin"
after vehemently stating that he has not used the word to describe a
photograph. What was the reason for having my mother explain to me what the
word "virgin" means? Regardless, he was proven to have lied in his
statement.

He has called me a liar on numerous occasions.

Stating that he does not resort to name calling is totally inaccurate.

Saying that he doesn't adhere
"Ed Pirrero" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bruce Jensen wrote:
Ed Pirrero wrote:

Really? Which part is opinion?

I see one in there, besides the invective.

E.P.


I pointed out two of them, which you snipped. The rest are left to the
readers' perceptions.


OK, now I see the other one. "Much" of what he wrote wasn't opinion.
Less than half of his points were opinion. I do agree that the
invective makes for difficult reading.

Really, if you want to have discussion on the merits of a particular
course of action, it's best to leave hyperbole and name-calling out.
Mike doesn't adhere to that in the least, and cherry-picks his "facts"
as suit his conclusions. Real scientists usually refer to such things
as "junk" science.

No matter how fervently one believes in something, they are not
entitled to their own set of facts.

E.P.



  #26  
Old December 6th 06, 05:15 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Roberto Baggio
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 173
Default Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"

Do you actually believe that he reads published, accredited journals?

"jason" wrote in message
m...


Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
fond of!


hey mikey take a look, cell phones DONT cause cancer. Is the rest of your
research and facts as accurate?


http://www.wrcbtv.com/news/index.cfm?sid=4926

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/heal...p?newsid=58298



  #27  
Old December 6th 06, 05:53 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Ed Pirrero
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 785
Default Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?

[Top-posting fixed]

Roberto Baggio wrote:
"Ed Pirrero" wrote in message
ups.com...
Bruce Jensen wrote:
Ed Pirrero wrote:

Really? Which part is opinion?

I see one in there, besides the invective.

I pointed out two of them, which you snipped. The rest are left to the
readers' perceptions.


OK, now I see the other one. "Much" of what he wrote wasn't opinion.
Less than half of his points were opinion. I do agree that the
invective makes for difficult reading.

Really, if you want to have discussion on the merits of a particular
course of action, it's best to leave hyperbole and name-calling out.
Mike doesn't adhere to that in the least, and cherry-picks his "facts"
as suit his conclusions. Real scientists usually refer to such things
as "junk" science.

No matter how fervently one believes in something, they are not
entitled to their own set of facts.

He made reference to my mother explaining to me the definition of "virgin"
after vehemently stating that he has not used the word to describe a
photograph. What was the reason for having my mother explain to me what the
word "virgin" means? Regardless, he was proven to have lied in his
statement.

He has called me a liar on numerous occasions.

Stating that he does not resort to name calling is totally inaccurate.


Who said he doesn't?

BTW, figure out how to post properly, OK?

E.P.

  #28  
Old December 6th 06, 05:54 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Ed Pirrero
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 785
Default Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?


JP wrote:
"Ed Pirrero" wrote in message
ups.com...

Really, if you want to have discussion on the merits of a particular
course of action, it's best to leave hyperbole and name-calling out.
Mike doesn't adhere to that in the least, and cherry-picks his "facts"
as suit his conclusions. Real scientists usually refer to such things
as "junk" science.

No matter how fervently one believes in something, they are not
entitled to their own set of facts.

E.P.


I'm not trying to have a discusssion with MV, that has been proven
impossible
by many in the group including myself. My use of "invective" is simply a
mirror
of MV's responses and is directed at him for that reason.


That's fine. Can you send it directly to him, and spare the rest of
us?

Thanks.

E.P.

  #29  
Old December 7th 06, 02:34 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
JP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 300
Default Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?



"Ed Pirrero" wrote in message ups.com...

JP wrote:
"Ed Pirrero" wrote in message
ups.com...

Really, if you want to have discussion on the merits of a particular
course of action, it's best to leave hyperbole and name-calling out.
Mike doesn't adhere to that in the least, and cherry-picks his "facts"
as suit his conclusions. Real scientists usually refer to such things
as "junk" science.

No matter how fervently one believes in something, they are not
entitled to their own set of facts.

E.P.


I'm not trying to have a discusssion with MV, that has been proven
impossible
by many in the group including myself. My use of "invective" is simply a
mirror
of MV's responses and is directed at him for that reason.


That's fine. Can you send it directly to him, and spare the rest of
us?

Thanks.

E.P.


If "the rest of us" can refrain from answering his posts, fine.
If they decide to engage him, I'm in.
You can spare yourself anytime by not clicking the message.
As far as my sending a direct response to a public post....NO.
  #30  
Old December 8th 06, 03:41 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
JP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 300
Default Another Vandemann Lie!! Actually a number of them. But what else is new?

Top posting is a preference.
It saves time and effort for the reader already following a thread.


"Ed Pirrero" wrote in message
ups.com...
[Top-posting fixed]

Roberto Baggio wrote:
"Ed Pirrero" wrote in message
ups.com...
Bruce Jensen wrote:
Ed Pirrero wrote:

Really? Which part is opinion?

I see one in there, besides the invective.

I pointed out two of them, which you snipped. The rest are left to
the
readers' perceptions.

OK, now I see the other one. "Much" of what he wrote wasn't opinion.
Less than half of his points were opinion. I do agree that the
invective makes for difficult reading.

Really, if you want to have discussion on the merits of a particular
course of action, it's best to leave hyperbole and name-calling out.
Mike doesn't adhere to that in the least, and cherry-picks his "facts"
as suit his conclusions. Real scientists usually refer to such things
as "junk" science.

No matter how fervently one believes in something, they are not
entitled to their own set of facts.

He made reference to my mother explaining to me the definition of
"virgin"
after vehemently stating that he has not used the word to describe a
photograph. What was the reason for having my mother explain to me what
the
word "virgin" means? Regardless, he was proven to have lied in his
statement.

He has called me a liar on numerous occasions.

Stating that he does not resort to name calling is totally inaccurate.


Who said he doesn't?

BTW, figure out how to post properly, OK?

E.P.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Girls gone wild" bus hits cyclist Werehatrack General 2 July 27th 06 02:49 PM
Muni "warm-up" routine(s) and best time of day to ride. terrybigwheel Unicycling 10 May 23rd 06 04:25 AM
R.I.P. Jim Price (aka. "biker_billy", "sydney", "Boudreaux") spin156 Techniques 15 November 28th 05 08:21 PM
Payback Time or "Mr. Armstrong, your check has come due" matabala Racing 1 August 23rd 05 04:49 PM
"Challenges In One's Time Of Life Are Extraordinary" on 4-14-84 [email protected] Australia 0 January 4th 05 04:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.